UK participants sought for a CAS infringement study

What a sad thread, as are the others referenced.

Good luck in your research, Mike.

What must others, both within aviation and without, think of the sector of GA pilots that always looks to blame others and appears to prefer to not take responsibility? Regardless of ‘whose fault’ one thinks infringements are, we as pilots must always look to improve ourselves, and understand our exposure to risk and error. Why we would shout down a researcher looking into the errors pilots make is quite beyond me.

I have accepted that help from here is not forthcoming.

That is not correct some posts have offered help.

Vintage Flyer I sympathise and it is a pity this has been on EuroGA which normally enjoys a fair play climate.

We don’t “close” threads here. They come to a natural end when people stop posting to them. Much more democratic There is a Lock feature but it is almost never used.

When I get some time I will edit the thread to remove the personal attacks, which should not be posted.

What a sad thread

What is sad is that the CAA has created such an adversarial climate, with the new “bust them all, and the problem will go away” policy operated by their “infringements team”. Nobody else in Europe is doing this.

Welcome to EuroGA, Vintageflyer

Well said Peter

I think the story here is not so much what findings will be found, but rather what it will be used for, and by who, and for which purpose. I think the answer is rather obvious, regardless of what comes out of it, because the underlying idea is that errors can be prevented if the pilot has the right tools.

The other side of this is the fact that busting airspaces is no big problem any other place, and this is achieved without focusing on pilot errors.

I have never flown in the UK, and have no plan to do it, but I do feel sorry for UK pilots having to endure this climate for no good reason whatsoever.

I have no problems seeing the rationale behind this research. What I have problems with is this focus on the GA pilot instead of the environment he/she is a part of. The more opportunities for errors, the more errors will be done. Digging down in the details of pilot errors, while being a fun exercise, will not really solve anything. It will be “useful”, I guess, for rule makers and other bureaucrats, but what is needed is a simpler way of flying where the opportunity for errors is reduced. I’m not alone having that opinion.

The other side of this is the fact that busting airspaces is no big problem any other place, and this is achieved without focusing on pilot errors.

And THAT sums up in one sentence what is wrong with keeping going on about “pilot error”.

Any system designed to prevent errors from occurring is doomed to failure – to err is human. Any system that uses penalties to reduce errors is doomed to lack of cooperation.

The entire system already is designed to deal with errors, and one of the mechanisms is that controlled airspace has MILES of buffer between the boundary of the airspace and where the aircraft actually fly. If a safety buffer is infringed, yes this is an “error”, but the response is to (a) detect the infringement and (b) deal with it before it becomes a problem.

I’ve removed the personal attacks that I found. Please keep this polite from now on.

Mike – I am not sure if you answered the early Q about who is funding your research. Also, are you involved with the CAA in any way?

@MikeE, Im sorry but you ARE going on about infringements:

MikeE wrote:

I keep saying that I am researching pilot error. I am doing that by finding pilots who have infringed as a result of error.

MikeE wrote:

Infringements are linked to accidents but not causally as suggested by ‘that’ poster. What I am saying is that the errors to which we as humans are prone can lead to all sorts of outcomes. When factors coincide, as they do, we become prone to error. That error may have a consequence. It may not. If it does, that consequence will depend on the circumstances. I mentioned in an earlier post dropping a pen leading to distraction. Let me use another example. An alarm goes off in the cockpit. The pilot looks at it and inadvertently the aircraft descends 100 feet. If the pilot is flying 50 feet above CAS, s/he will infringe. If the pilots is away from CAS, then nothing will happen. If the pilot is 90 feet above the runway, s/he will crash. The circumstances leading to the error and the error are exactly the same. The only difference is the outcome. I am looking at pilot error. There is no reason to suppose that the errors described to me at interviews that led to the infringement could in other circumstances have led to a crash, or to nothing remarkable at all. So the focus is on error, not the outcome (in this case infringements).

I kinda get your point…but you have seriously said (as a pilot?) that on an approach to land, you might drop 100ft and crash looking at “an alarm”….I mean really?
Quite frankly it would have to be a hell of a distraction at less than 100ft above a runway…So no, I dont think the errors related to infringements are the same as those that may lead to an aeroplane crashing.

MikeE wrote:

So how do you suggest I find pilots who have made an error? Genuine question. Do I go online and say ‘pilots: have you made a mistake? Please take part in my research.’

Quite literally, yes!! If you look at the top of this page there is a forum “ILAFFT”. There is actually a thread in there near the top of the page titled “Your biggest mistake” or something similar, not sure how to link to it, but its got over 150 responses…There are loads of examples of pilots making errors, and many explanations as to how they happened. (Im going to ignore your comments about “maps”…I do hope they were supposed to be tongue in cheek!!)

Regards, SD..